(08-25-2023 11:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 10:58 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 10:56 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I agree. The fact that WSU and OSU are now taking meetings with the MWC and AAC means that they believe that Stanford and Cal have moved on.

Or maybe they've decided that enough is enough and it's time to be proactive for once, understanding that hinging one's future on CalStan is a sucker's game.

They’re not being “proactive” to make the decision to relegate themselves to the G5. That could be done at any time.

I get that, but honest question for you since I believe you are an attorney. If Cal/Standford leave and OSU/WSU are the last two PAC teams, doesn't that mean they are left holding the bag on any debt/liability/dissolution costs? I realize they could very easily make a case in court against the other 10 former members of the PAC for damages, but they would be the ones forced to lead that charge, wouldn't they? Isn't it feasible they know the end result here and are simply trying to speed up the process and dump the rest of the mess in Cal/Stanford's lap?

(08-25-2023 11:38 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:17 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That Tier 1 pro-rata thing is coming in handy for the ACC.

Well, the ACC has a pretty ****** TV deal as a whole, and it's kind of ridiculous that the ACC is currently only making basically the same as the Big 12 despite clearly being a more valuable conference. The fact that the ACC tv contract can be modified upward somewhat more easily than the Big 12 contract hardly makes up for how bad the ACC deal is as a whole.

If the ACC were to go to market right now, with its current members (no Stanford, etc.) and with all rights available to sell, what do you think it would bring?

I'm not sure it would bring that much more. IMO the main drawback of their deal is its length and that teams are locked in by the GOR for so long. But the current 2023 dollars are IMO pretty close to where the market would be.

Then again, I'm not a media expert so could well be wrong.

Correct.

I like the ACC but if you look at the football attendance and rating numbers, the ACC is only marginally better than the B12.

The ACC undervaluation is a message board myth. The ACC has a slight better product than the B12 and as such the ACC would get paid slightly more.

The only clear advantage that the ACC has over the B12 is the academics. That’s why Calford would never consider the B12 but keeps calling Phillips and the ACC presidents.

To your point, when people say, “The ACC is undervalued,” what they really mean “FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC are undervalued relative to ACC payouts.” The entire rest of the ACC is properly valued or arguably overvalued relative to ACC payouts.

(08-25-2023 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:38 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:17 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That Tier 1 pro-rata thing is coming in handy for the ACC.

Well, the ACC has a pretty ****** TV deal as a whole, and it's kind of ridiculous that the ACC is currently only making basically the same as the Big 12 despite clearly being a more valuable conference. The fact that the ACC tv contract can be modified upward somewhat more easily than the Big 12 contract hardly makes up for how bad the ACC deal is as a whole.

If the ACC were to go to market right now, with its current members (no Stanford, etc.) and with all rights available to sell, what do you think it would bring?

I'm not sure it would bring that much more. IMO the main drawback of their deal is its length and that teams are locked in by the GOR for so long. But the current 2023 dollars are IMO pretty close to where the market would be.

Then again, I'm not a media expert so could well be wrong.

Correct.

I like the ACC but if you look at the football attendance and rating numbers, the ACC is only marginally better than the B12.

The ACC undervaluation is a message board myth. The ACC has a slight better product than the B12 and as such the ACC would get paid slightly more.

The only clear advantage that the ACC has over the B12 is the academics. That’s why Calford would never consider the B12 but keeps calling Phillips and the ACC presidents.

To your point, when people say, “The ACC is undervalued,” what they really mean “FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC are undervalued relative to ACC payouts.” The entire rest of the ACC is properly valued or arguably overvalued relative to ACC payouts.

I agree with you here Frank 100%.

Just saw on College Football Live that talks between the ACC and CalFord and SMU are indeed progressing. Week 1 is considered a "soft" deadline for a formal announcement.

If it happens, congrats to CalFord and SMU for getting a lifeboat of sorts, especially the Mustangs. That would leave Rice University as the only former SWC school to not get back to being in a power conference since the SWC collapsed. (I pray they get a P5 invitation soon.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/d...r-AA1fMGAl

"Atlantic Coast Conference athletic directors held a video call to discuss — again — the possibility of adding California, Stanford and SMU to the league and what to do with the extra revenue that could come with expansion.

The ACC's university presidents and chancellors have the final say on expansion and the full board was not involved in Thursday night's talks. As of Friday morning, the next formal meeting of ACC leadership had not been scheduled....


At issue in the ACC is how that money will be distributed, according to multiple people who have been involved in the discussions, all speaking to AP on condition of anonymity to share private internal discussions.

With Florida State, Clemson, Miami and North Carolina leading the push, ACC leaders earlier this year agreed to a “ success incentive initiative” that would allow schools to earn more of the money generated from their own postseason performances in football and men's basketball, plus other potential bonuses.

The amount of expansion-generated revenue that goes toward the incentive initiative as opposed to being distributed equally among members is a key issue that could determine whether Phillips can get the required 12 of the 15 schools to approve adding new members, a person briefed on the ACC’s talks told AP...."

Reminds me of the movie set in Las Vegas. Think Nicholas Cage was in it. Guy asks a man's wife if she would sleep with him for $10,000. She says, "NO!!!! I'm not a prostitute." "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well then I would do it." "Good. Then we have established you are a prostitute. Now we are just negotiating the price."

FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are just trying to get a good enough price.

(08-25-2023 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Reminds me of the movie set in Las Vegas. Think Nicholas Cage was in it. Guy asks a man's wife if she would sleep with him for $10,000. She says, "NO!!!! I'm not a prostitute." "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well then I would do it." "Good. Then we have established you are a prostitute. Now we are just negotiating the price."

FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are just trying to get a good enough price.

I love how NC State seriously thinks they'd benefit from an unequal revenue sharing model.

(08-25-2023 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:38 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:17 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That Tier 1 pro-rata thing is coming in handy for the ACC.

Well, the ACC has a pretty ****** TV deal as a whole, and it's kind of ridiculous that the ACC is currently only making basically the same as the Big 12 despite clearly being a more valuable conference. The fact that the ACC tv contract can be modified upward somewhat more easily than the Big 12 contract hardly makes up for how bad the ACC deal is as a whole.

If the ACC were to go to market right now, with its current members (no Stanford, etc.) and with all rights available to sell, what do you think it would bring?

I'm not sure it would bring that much more. IMO the main drawback of their deal is its length and that teams are locked in by the GOR for so long. But the current 2023 dollars are IMO pretty close to where the market would be.

Then again, I'm not a media expert so could well be wrong.

Correct.

I like the ACC but if you look at the football attendance and rating numbers, the ACC is only marginally better than the B12.

The ACC undervaluation is a message board myth. The ACC has a slight better product than the B12 and as such the ACC would get paid slightly more.

The only clear advantage that the ACC has over the B12 is the academics. That’s why Calford would never consider the B12 but keeps calling Phillips and the ACC presidents.

To your point, when people say, “The ACC is undervalued,” what they really mean “FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC are undervalued relative to ACC payouts.” The entire rest of the ACC is properly valued or arguably overvalued relative to ACC payouts.

It appears many people still believe that the ACC as a whole is vastly undervalued because their contract was signed a long time ago and it's not up for a renewal until 2036. The media keeps repeating the same thing. Many ACC fans also believe that myth.

The fact is that the ACC gets paid whole lot less than P2 but will get paid more than the B12 for the next cycle. In my opinion that's completely fair given the collective value of the ACC schools.

To your point, it's true that the B12 schools are more homogeneous in terms of value compared to the ACC schools.

Usually, high value schools have more say within a conference (think of Texas in the B12 and OSU & Michigan in the B10). The ACC is unique in this aspect because FSU is a high value school but doesn't control the league. In other words, FSU gets neither money nor power.

Thus they complain about being undervalued.

(08-25-2023 04:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/d...r-AA1fMGAl

"Atlantic Coast Conference athletic directors held a video call to discuss — again — the possibility of adding California, Stanford and SMU to the league and what to do with the extra revenue that could come with expansion.

The ACC's university presidents and chancellors have the final say on expansion and the full board was not involved in Thursday night's talks. As of Friday morning, the next formal meeting of ACC leadership had not been scheduled....


At issue in the ACC is how that money will be distributed, according to multiple people who have been involved in the discussions, all speaking to AP on condition of anonymity to share private internal discussions.

With Florida State, Clemson, Miami and North Carolina leading the push, ACC leaders earlier this year agreed to a “ success incentive initiative” that would allow schools to earn more of the money generated from their own postseason performances in football and men's basketball, plus other potential bonuses.

The amount of expansion-generated revenue that goes toward the incentive initiative as opposed to being distributed equally among members is a key issue that could determine whether Phillips can get the required 12 of the 15 schools to approve adding new members, a person briefed on the ACC’s talks told AP...."

Not quite there yet and anything could happen over the weekend.

It looks promising though.

(08-25-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Reminds me of the movie set in Las Vegas. Think Nicholas Cage was in it. Guy asks a man's wife if she would sleep with him for $10,000. She says, "NO!!!! I'm not a prostitute." "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well then I would do it." "Good. Then we have established you are a prostitute. Now we are just negotiating the price."

FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are just trying to get a good enough price.

I love how NC State seriously thinks they'd benefit from an unequal revenue sharing model.

If any of the incentive is based on what place in conference beyond winning the conference championship, say extra money for the top 3rd of the league then schools like NCSU, WF and Pitt would benefit. If game attendance, perhaps highest 4 schools based on percent of capacity NCSU would benefit every year. Also remember that there are no longer 2 divisions so WF and NCSU no longer have to play Clemson every year. The funny thing is FSU might well benefit less from performance incentives than WF unless they finally start proving themselves on the field. Even if the incentives are based on TV viewership, if they assign a weighted scale to that, considering which channel, what time, what games they were competing in a time slot against and who they were playing, the FSU boasting about ratings might not be nearly as good as everyone thinks it is. Playing LSU on a major channel during primetime with no other games on is not the same as FSU playing Vandy on the ACCN on Saturday afternoon at the same time Michigan is playing Purdue on Fox, and Alabama is playing Florida on ABC.

(08-25-2023 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:38 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:17 AM)Poster Wrote:  Well, the ACC has a pretty ****** TV deal as a whole, and it's kind of ridiculous that the ACC is currently only making basically the same as the Big 12 despite clearly being a more valuable conference. The fact that the ACC tv contract can be modified upward somewhat more easily than the Big 12 contract hardly makes up for how bad the ACC deal is as a whole.

If the ACC were to go to market right now, with its current members (no Stanford, etc.) and with all rights available to sell, what do you think it would bring?

I'm not sure it would bring that much more. IMO the main drawback of their deal is its length and that teams are locked in by the GOR for so long. But the current 2023 dollars are IMO pretty close to where the market would be.

Then again, I'm not a media expert so could well be wrong.

Correct.

I like the ACC but if you look at the football attendance and rating numbers, the ACC is only marginally better than the B12.

The ACC undervaluation is a message board myth. The ACC has a slight better product than the B12 and as such the ACC would get paid slightly more.

The only clear advantage that the ACC has over the B12 is the academics. That’s why Calford would never consider the B12 but keeps calling Phillips and the ACC presidents.

To your point, when people say, “The ACC is undervalued,” what they really mean “FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC are undervalued relative to ACC payouts.” The entire rest of the ACC is properly valued or arguably overvalued relative to ACC payouts.

I agree with you here Frank 100%.

Yeah, you guys are spot on here. The ACC's contract, right now, is probably a better value for them than the Big 12's contract is for the Big 12 members. The difference is that the ACC has a few really high value schools, and for them...well, they could make more money elsewhere, and the ACC contract is unlikely to increase enough to keep pace with the others in 2030/31/34. Well, at least it wasn't until they started looking to add 70m people to in-market ACCN rates. If they go through with that then it's possible that they can keep pace with the others as they increase before 2036.

(08-25-2023 02:20 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Just saw on College Football Live that talks between the ACC and CalFord and SMU are indeed progressing. Week 1 is considered a "soft" deadline for a formal announcement.

If it happens, congrats to CalFord and SMU for getting a lifeboat of sorts, especially the Mustangs. That would leave Rice University as the only former SWC school to not get back to being in a power conference since the SWC collapsed. (I pray they get a P5 invitation soon.)

Why? I have a ton of respect for Rice as an institution of higher learning, but they're probably better off playing small time CFB rather than D1, especially FBS. They have ivy-like Academic standards and 4240 undergrads. It's a tiny campus. They are VERY DIFFERENT from every other former SWC school.

(08-25-2023 11:33 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:17 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That Tier 1 pro-rata thing is coming in handy for the ACC.

Well, the ACC has a pretty ****** TV deal as a whole, and it's kind of ridiculous that the ACC is currently only making basically the same as the Big 12 despite clearly being a more valuable conference. The fact that the ACC tv contract can be modified upward somewhat more easily than the Big 12 contract hardly makes up for how bad the ACC deal is as a whole.

If the ACC were to go to market right now, with its current members (no Stanford, etc.) and with all rights available to sell, what do you think it would bring?

I'm not sure it would bring that much more. IMO the main drawback of their deal is its length and that teams are locked in by the GOR for so long. But the current 2023 dollars are IMO pretty close to where the market would be.

Then again, I'm not a media expert so could well be wrong.

The ACC outdid the Big 12 in football viewership most if not all years even when the Big 12 had Texas and Oklahoma.

Only if you took averages. 9 Big 12 games and 6 ACC games. It was a very different story if you compared the same number of games instead of weighting the Big 12 with 50% of the lowest rated games (Big 12 had more games on rated networks)
https://sicem365.com/s/13021/how-do-the-...on-viewers
From about the 8th page:
"...As we can see the SEC is ahead of everyone slightly but the Big Ten is tracking closer with them than most would expect from a simple average since the Big Ten had more games reach nationally rated networks. Next in the hierarchy is the Big 12, as it is neck and neck with the ACC for the top games but the Big 12 pulls away after those. Then it’s the ACC and Pac 12 who trade leads depending on what number of games you sample.

Among the G5 the AAC was the clear leader with the MWC as a clear No. 2. The MAC and Sun Belt took advantage of weeknight windows on ESPN networks to pull ahead of CUSA, who’s tv deal has very few nationally rated games and gets much less exposure.

This ranking is generally the same I’ve seen for individual years over the decade. It’s been the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and then depending on the year the ACC or Pac 12 would trade leads. The G5 typically was the AAC, MWC, then everyone else. However, 2021 had one big switch that I had not seen...."

Note: This is with Texas and OU. The Big 12 is lower than the ACC when those get excluded. So the ACC should earn more now, but not before. And that was reflected in distributions as the Big 12 was almost always ahead of the ACC.

(08-25-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Reminds me of the movie set in Las Vegas. Think Nicholas Cage was in it. Guy asks a man's wife if she would sleep with him for $10,000. She says, "NO!!!! I'm not a prostitute." "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well then I would do it." "Good. Then we have established you are a prostitute. Now we are just negotiating the price."

FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are just trying to get a good enough price.

I love how NC State seriously thinks they'd benefit from an unequal revenue sharing model.

NC State? FSU is 36-36 over the past 6 years.

(08-26-2023 12:51 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 04:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 04:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Reminds me of the movie set in Las Vegas. Think Nicholas Cage was in it. Guy asks a man's wife if she would sleep with him for $10,000. She says, "NO!!!! I'm not a prostitute." "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well then I would do it." "Good. Then we have established you are a prostitute. Now we are just negotiating the price."

FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are just trying to get a good enough price.

I love how NC State seriously thinks they'd benefit from an unequal revenue sharing model.

NC State? FSU is 36-36 over the past 6 years.

Yeah, but 83-43 over the past 10 (with a National Championship). Cherry picking is easy.